MP3.com Sued for 'viral' Copyright Infringement?

Are We Afraid writes "Apparently the RIAA isn't the only one looking to make money off of MP3.com. They have just been sued by a group of independent artists for, get this, "viral copyright infringement". What does that even mean???" They claim that people who downloaded MP3s from mp3.com contributed them to napster, so MP3.com owes them. It's really bizarre.

Won't Hold up!

[Dutchmaan]

If people cannot sue gun companies for what people do with guns, then I sincerely believe this lawsuit will be fighting an uphill battle trying to sue mp3.com for what other people did with their downloaded files.

I WANT People to Do This

[Leif_Bloomquist]

I'm an independent musician [mp3.com] on mp3.com, and I want people to download my music and spread it on Napster (well I did, until Napster started to suck. OK, WinMx [winmx.com] then.) It's all about exposure. Nobody will hear my music on the radio, mp3.com and Napster et al are my best venues to advertise.

MP3.com made compressed copies of about 900,000 songs, which it placed on its computer servers -- without obtaining the rights to do so.

I wish they gave more details, this makes no sense. mp3.com makes you click-sign an agreement saying that this is all OK.

god help us

[furiousgeorge]

This should be interesting.....it'll all boil down to who the judge is and who cluefull/less he is.

Lets recap: the service that mp3.com offered required you to prove that you had the CD. They used their special little app that would then be queried by their servers for a number of random pieces from the CD. If all the pieces lined up, then you 'owned' the CD, and they put it in your locker for you. Even Bruce Scheiner (sic? i can't be bothered to look it up) evaluated their protocol and found it cryptographically secure.

So - You can only get access to the mp3's from mp3.com if you already own (or are at least IN POSESSION of) the CD. Therefore you could rip the mp3's for napster yourself. Getting a streamed version from them gave you nothing - except slowing you down.

But with the typical justice system they'll get reamed........ again..........

Out of Control

[M_Talon]

While we're at it, why doesn't somebody sue MCI Worldcom, Sprint, and any other backbone provider for upkeeping the Internet which allows file sharing to occur in the first place?

This kind of litigation is ridiculous. It's merely an attempt to bleed more money out a dying company, and any judge with half a brain would realize the absolute dangerous precedence this would set. Anyone who merely touches a certain technology could be sued if the tech was used for copyright infraction. "Oh, those CDR manufacturers should be sued, since they're making discs that carry pirated material. They're accessories to infringement."

Once again, I say puuhleeeze. This whole attack on "piracy" is doing nothing but making the recording industry look bad. It pushes people to find better ways to circumvent the process and causes others to completely boycott legitimate music purchases all together.

Industry, find someway to make the customer happy without ramming lawsuits and unethical CD mods down our throats. Customers, support reasonable attempts at legitimate digital music, but let your voice be heard when abuse of the law and standards occurs. Until then, a lot of good people will lose out.

Bad trend.

[Rimbo]

I really don't like this trend of everyone and their dog suing MP3.com. I, and many of my friends, depend on MP3.com as a means of distribution for our music. I've also found it a wonderful place to find new music. I don't even go into record stores any more, simply because I appreciate being able to listen to the music I want to buy before I buy it. Even if people just click and download songs to try them out, we get paid.

I'm not going to be rich because of it, but for at least one friend of mine's band (The Brobdingnagian Bards: http://mp3.com/thebards), it's a really good step on the way to being able to make music for a living.

For all its flaws, it's a great service both to music fans and to musicians. I hope that a few bad apples won't ruin it for the rest of us.

MP3.com isn't so bad for artists...

[Rimbo]

...especially when you compare the percentage of money and rights they give to their artists to what the RIAA typically gives its artists.

And for a lot of us, it's a great way to supplement our income from gigs and real album sales.

The $19.95 "Premium Artist" service done right is actually ludicrously easy to break even with. I have yet to have a month where I even came close to going negative, and my only form of advertising is a link at the bottom of my slashdot sig!

Also, just because you put songs up on MP3.com doesn't mean you have to put ALL of them up there. In fact, not doing so is a great way to draw listeners into buying your CD's and attending your gigs.

So I don't think MP3.com is ripping me or anyone else off. I think the people who complain about such things are the people who tend to complain about everything -- the ultra-paranoid who think EVERYONE is out to rip them off.

Or agents of the RIAA. (hehehe...just kidding) ;)

Two words: public library

[yerricde]

You can only get access to the mp3's from mp3.com if you already own (or are at least IN POSESSION of) the CD.

You pointed out a subtle distinction: possession != owning. Yes, the cliche goes "possession counts as nine-tenths of the law," but the other one-tenth comes from contracts. For example, I often borrow CDs from a public library, but they come with a contract that I must return them after 21 days or pay late fees. I certainly do not own them under first sale and most likely may not keep backups in my possession.

Re:Won't Hold up!

[Rude Turnip]

I'm not sure about your analogy. If you mean to say that car makers are sued over the loss of life and property because of *faulty manufacturing*, then your analogy doesn't work.

The better analogy is that a car maker would be sued if someone allegedy uses the car to commit a crime.

Re:Viral copyright infringement

[Col. Panic]

Not even kidding - imagine a worm thar tried to send just one .mp3 to each person in an address book. The bandwidth consumption would be HUGE. Considering the default Napster download paths are often in place, lots of users will have .mp3s in a known location (still) ... oops.